Machine learning: Alastair McIntosh’s Thought for the week

‘What’s the difference between a person and a machine?’

I’ve been really busy these past few weeks, and when I eventually peered up from the computer, my wife pointed to my shaggy locks, and ordered: ‘Off you go to Wilma’s for a haircut!’

Part of my busyness lay with artificial intelligence (AI); I’d been playing with one of those new ‘chatbots’ that respond to user inputs. Before dashing out the door, I popped it another question: ‘Can you write a poem about Wilma’s hair salon?’ I took the results and burst into her shop along the road, with seven verses that began:

In the heart of Govan, a place so grand,
Stands Wilma’s Salon, a magical land.
With scissors and combs, she weaves her art,
Transforming hair with a skilful heart.

You can imagine! But there’s a less funny side. At the end of last month, in the USA, Sam Altman, who is a pioneer in artificial intelligence technology, testified to Congress. He said that, if AI isn’t regulated, ‘significant harm to the world’ may result.

Altman was referring to things like the ability AI has to manipulate emotions for political ends. Some experts even believe that AI may develop feelings and consciousness, and take control.

This invites the question: what’s the difference between a person and a machine?

If we believe that human qualities are little more than chemistry in the brain, then it makes sense that machines might catch up. But if we believe humanity to be a sacred quality, and that our consciousness is woven from a love that no machine could ever emulate, then a very different vision of the world unfolds.

So… when I got back from Wilma’s, duly transformed, I popped another question to the chatbot. I asked for a ‘Thought for the Day’ poem on artificial intelligence. And here is what it said:

Let’s tread with care upon this road,
For AI, though brilliant, is but a code
Its wisdom is vast but lacks soul’s embrace.
So in matters of ethics it has no place. 

There you have it! Machines can be humble. If they’re programmed to be so.

---

Comments

Not sure ‘there you have it’ really covers it Alastair.
If those 4 lines really are a ‘chatbot’s’ thought for the day on AI then it is quite impressive.
But whilst AI is a long way (a long, long way) from anything we could seriously recognise as equivalent to human intelligence, nonetheless this technology surely does need some kind of regulation(soon). If ‘they’ can be programmed to be humble, they can surely also be programmed to be agressive, domineering, vindictive and cruel (as well as ‘perfect’ liars). Bring on the regulation when ‘significant harm’ is already in progress.

By trevorb on 21st June 2023 - 21:47

---

Taking on board both your piece and mine, AI can recognise and regurgitate aggressive, sad or even affectionate messages.  But this is only by using its its internal dictionary to generate appropriate verbal responses.  These won’t imply an internal resource of anger, hurt, love, wonder, or even joy at aptness of response. 

AI can deliberately introduce untruth into its responses.  There has already been a court case where a barrister was served with invented past cases as precedents alongside genuine ones –  the inventions were like the supply of a text in the style of a known writer.  The AI system was able to say which were genuine and which were not, but only when asked. 

Perhaps what I have said will be outdated when we have a better understanding of our own mental processes.  We already know that drugs can modify them.

By Richard Seebohm on 25th August 2023 - 17:02

---

Hi Folks. Alastair here. I have only just seen these comments.

Can I say for context that many of these short pieces that I send to The Friend and adapted by the editor for Thought for the Day reflections broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland or perhaps Radio 4 Prayer for the Day. The former is intended as a brief faith reflection on a topical issue on the news, thus the focus in this piece on Sam Altman. Moreover, the faith aspect has to hold people’s attention over breakfast as many are waiting for the sport slot and maybe a bit irritated at getting the God slot. As such, it’s a complex piece of ministry, and the capacity to unpack thoughts more deeply can be limited.

As such, Trevorb, “There you have it!” Does not and cannot cover it, but note that in the 2 min slot I’m trying to get in 2 thoughts of substance.

1) The follow on there which, with a humorous twist, reminds folks that what goes in to AI is human programmed: “Machines can be humble. If they’re programmed to be so.” As Richard says, “But this is only by using its its internal dictionary to generate appropriate verbal responses.”

And 2) further up, and supporting the conclusion, the reflection on the difference between a person and a machine: “ But if we believe humanity to be a sacred quality, and that our consciousness is woven from a love that no machine could ever emulate, then a very different vision of the world unfolds.”

I also had a discussion with Mike Nellis in our Glasgow meeting, which was partly around the use of humour in raising such points. Apart from what I just said about the audience I am speaking to, there is a deeper matter here. I think that AI might press us to realise that a lot of the everyday banter that we take to be expressive of our humanity is just chitter chatter at the level that a bot can replicate. What qualities then make us human? What distinguishes the spiritual? I think that question carries us beyond words, ergo our Quaker stillness.

Lastly, folks, If you google something like “Pope AI new year 2024” you’ll get Francis’ World Day of Peace message, this year on AI. I sent it on to Mike Nellis who said it is one of the deepest reflections he’s seen on the matter.

Go well, Alastair.

By Verene&Alastair; on 3rd January 2024 - 6:45

---

Please login to add a comment